Top 6 Stop-and-Frisk Locations in New York... — Brooklynian

Top 6 Stop-and-Frisk Locations in New York...

...of which at least 3 are in Brooklyn.

Number 1: East New York (31,000+ stops).




East Harlem

Jamaica, Queens

St. George, Staten island

"Critics say it discriminates against minorities and leads to racial profiling. The New York City Police Department says it reduces crime and saves lives."


  • "Stop and frisk" is the lazy method of law enforcement. Community policing as a policy is a proven method to reducing crime and generally removes community/police tensions. The police now patrol the affected communities in cruisers with the windows rolled up tight. When have to get out of their cruisers, they are generally agitated to have done so. If you stroll down the streets in Manhattans' upscale business districts, community policing is very much in force. You can't go fifty yards on major avenues without two (2) officers being posted.

    Community policing re-establishes the humanity of the NYPD and the community by placing a constant entity within the community. Through daily interaction, a cooperative relationship can be established between the members of the community and the "officers of the law". When police realize that they are their to maintain order by modeling "courtesy, professionalism and respect" then you will begin to get the reductions in crime that everyone seeks by the creation of a culture of humanity.

    Culture is destiny.

  • "they are their" should be "they are there"

  • Extremely well said.

  • I think as long as the present methods of policing are legal (i.e. heavily dependent upon stop and frisk), very little will change.

    I.E. Some areas of the city will have something that resembles Community Policing, and other areas will receive something that resembles an occupying force. The relentless cycle of hatred among the police and residents will continue.

    I should be interesting to see whether the Center for Constitutional Rights wins its case against the NYPD stop and frisk policies, and whether the "victory" is able to result in any real changes ...or yet another hollow court decision.

    Such a court decision would basically force the NYPD to make the first step in breaking the cycle of hatred.

    By expanding the list of neighborhoods in which people must be treated like people, it might reduce the list of neighborhoods in which people refer to people as merely "pigs" or "perps".

  • whynot_31

    By expanding the list of neighborhoods in which people must be treated like people, it might reduce the list of neighborhoods in which people refer to people as merely "pigs" or "perps".

    Or are referred to as "mopes", "skels", or whatever derogative term can be mustered. These terms frequently are uttered by the president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association president Patrick Lynch. The two NY daily newspapers (the News and the Pus er Post) never seem to take the time to point out that a criminal needn't be demonized or sensationalized, just indicted and incarcerated.

    The creation of a modicum of de-humanization by the media feeds into peoples latent (or not so latent) fears and enhances bigotry, racism and intolerance. For two of the latest examples see

    1. Sanford, Florida

    2. Bronx. N.Y

  • I agree.

    I would even argue that the ongoing existence of these newspapers shows that the appetite for such -ahem- "journalism" is widespread. The continued election of characters such as Patrick Lynch shows similar point.

    The supply of such newspapers and characters people is often strongly correlated to the demand for such. ...both the The Post and Patrick Lynch continue to exist because they know that their messages are well received.

    Not to sound fatalist but:

    If they perish, someone or something, will rise to fill their shoes.

  • Today, Kelly wrote Quinn a letter stating that the NYPD will improve.


  • Jan 8, 2013:

    Federal Judge limits Stop and Frisk in The Bronx.

    Commissioner Kelly-

    The next move is yours.

    Text of the decision:

  • In an interesting development, the Judge has stated that the specific types of Stop and Frisks covered by the above decision can continue.

    The WSJ seems to do a pretty good job explaining her rationale in this article:

    Reasonably complex stuff.

  • The Times is pointing the NYPD has already changed tactics, yet (despite the predictions of some) crime has not soared:

  • A criminal justice institute, Vera, is trying to stir interest in its soon-to-be-released report on the subject.

    I find Vera to be more calm, thoughtful and insightful than most of the entities that cover the topic.

    New Study Explores the Experience of Stop and Frisk on Young People in Highly Patrolled Neighborhoods

    New York City has seen a steady decline in its jail population as well as a dramatic decrease in its crime rate over the past two decades—phenomena that have intrigued criminologists and social science researchers who have tried to explain their causes. On the other hand, misdemeanor arrests have risen to record levels, and police interactions with city residents in the most heavily patrolled neighborhoods have soared since 2002 when the New York City Police Department (NYPD) instituted a preventive policing strategy that features stop, question, and frisk. Commonly known as stop and frisk, this technique permits a police officer who has reasonable suspicion that a person may be engaged in criminal activity to stop that person on the street, question him, and sometimes pat him down for contraband. In 2011 (the latest full year for which there is data) the NYPD conducted more than 685,000 stops, of which approximately 90 percent involved non-white suspects.

    Whether and how stop and frisk is connected to the drop in crime is the subject of considerable attention in the media, by researchers, advocates, and the public. Proponents who support the use and scale of stop and frisk credit the technique for getting weapons off the streets and being an essential tool for law enforcement in making neighborhoods, especially high crime neighborhoods, safer. Those who oppose the practice argue that there is no proof that it increases public safety and considerable evidence that it leads to unconstitutional intrusions in the lives of those who have done nothing wrong as well as longer term harmful effects for this largely minority population.

    Lacking in the debate is research about how residents of highly-patrolled communities experience stop and frisk. Do residents say they are safer because of the heavy police presence, or do they say they are more vulnerable to unjustified stops? Do they regard police conduct during stop-and-frisk interactions as respectful and fair, or do they claim their rights are being violated? What is the impact of the heavy police presence and high level of stop and frisk activity on individuals, their families, and communities?

    To address these issues, the Vera Institute of Justice embarked in late 2011 on a multi-method study aimed at gathering evidence and analyzing how police stops affect the lives of young people living in neighborhoods with high police presence. Vera researchers are focused on five neighborhoods where the practice of stop, question, and frisk is used intensively: East New York; Bedford-Stuyvesant; East Harlem; the South Bronx; and Jamaica, Queens. The confluence of high police presence and comparatively high levels of violent crime make these neighborhoods particularly apt settings for a study of police-civilian relations, through the prism of residents’ experiences of fear and safety.

    “While many people have concerns about the efficacy and fairness of stop and frisk, this study is trying to look at something different by gaining insight into whether and how the practice affects young people’s perceptions of procedural justice, safety, and police efficacy, and their sense of themselves as community members,” said Jennifer Fratello, associate research director of Vera’s Center on Youth Justice and the study’s principal investigator. “We hope it provides recommendations about ways that residents and police can work better in mutually beneficial ways.”

    Using interviews and surveys, Vera researchers have gathered information in the five neighborhoods about residents’ personal experiences with the police and their attitudes toward safety, their fear of crime, and their view of law enforcement. By analyzing the data gathered from the people most affected by preventive policing and examining the intersection of these experiences and attitudes, the study aims to delineate the complex relationship between residents of these neighborhoods and the police. By looking more closely at these dynamics in each of the five study sites, the study will provide a more nuanced understanding of how police and residents in each community can work together to promote public safety in a way residents find both satisfying and effective.

    Vera expects to release a report on the study’s findings in late spring.

    For more information, contact Mary Crowley, director of communications. Phone: (212) 376-3172. E-mail:

  • This policy can be seen as an adjunct to Stop and Frisk, in that it targets young people who share many of the same demographics.

    However, it is configured in a way that it targets only persons who are known to engage in criminal activity:

    While having more of a focus is a good thing in terms of civil liberties, this approach is expensive, and can only to effectively used after youths have been involved in the criminal justice system.

  • The main legal case against "Stop and Frisk" is being brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

    It has been working its way through the court system for quite sometime, and several news sources are reporting that it will begin to be heard this Monday, March 18th and continue through much of April.

    The case, known as Floyd et al. v. City of New York et. al, challenges the NYPD's practices on the basis of racial profiling and the constitutionality of how the practice (Stop and Frisk) is presently being used in NYC.

    Outlets such as the NYT will give the case lots of coverage, because it has the potential of influencing how "Terry Stops" are conducted throughout the nation.

    It will be heard in the Southern District of New York Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Manhattan. The trial will take place before Judge Shira Scheindlin in Courtroom 15-C.

  • The NYT is stating this case will affect how Stop and Frisk is implemented in NYC, but does not seem to believe it has national implications:

  • It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers are so preoccupied with 2d Amendment rights but conveniently ignore all others such as:

    Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

    and, Fifth Amendment:

    "... No person ... shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

    The courts have allowed police to stop and frisk people without warrants nor any justification other than the pretense that one is a risk to society by being black or brown. If right wingers had even the slightest iota of principle, they would be the first ones to object to these political crimes against innocents.

  • Actually, the courts have not sanctioned stopping people on the basis of skin color.

    The present case by CCR alleges skin color is the basis the NYPD is using, and alleges the frisks are being implemented in a way that causes effects not intended by the Terry decision.

    However, it is not clear to me that CCR will win.

  • Actually, the courts have not sanctioned stopping people on the basis of skin color.

    Technically you are correct. But all a cop has to do is to make up a claim of "suspicion" and the courts allow the stupid stop & frisks to continue.

    Here in Minnesota, just like there in NY where I grew up, there is just as much drugs in the suburbs as there is in the inner city. Do you see cops stopping and frisking anyone in suburbia? No you don't. Same here. Why? Well, we all know the answer.

  • Yes, the standards for a Terry stop allow the police a great deal of discretion.

    The police will argue that their stops are legally allowed based on instinct, and that their instincts (along with where officers are assigned to work) are based on criminogenic risk factors.

    Few, if any, "experts" that have looked at this case believe it will overturn Terry.

    The case may cause the frequency of Stop and Frisks may be reduced, but I do not believe the decision will change the demographics of those stopped, because of the close correlation between select demographics. If it needs to be said, "correlation is not the same as causation."

    Nonetheless, it should be an interesting few weeks.

    Related reading:;..0.0...1c..6.psy-ab.pNutDRgd4wM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmQ&fp=de04ae36bd3f750a&biw=1536&bih=706

  • It is quotes like these that make me believe this case will address the quantity of people affected by the policy, but the demographics will remain constant:

    Bloomberg’s claim that stop-and-frisk has helped reverse New York crime trends -- a boast echoed by city lawyers in the federal trial this week -- fails to recognize the human toll of the tactic, said City Councilman Jumaane D. Williams, who represents portions of Brooklyn.

    “Mayor Bloomberg has failed to show any correlation between his use of stop, question and frisk and the rates of weapons recovery, shootings or murders,” Williams said. “He is wedded to a failed policy and has shown a unique obstinacy in defending it against an overwhelming mountain of evidence. ... “The cost of stop, question and frisk in money, lives and overall community health is immeasurable.”

    Daily News

  • NYT wrote: The senator’s testimony served to underscore one of the trial’s central constitutional questions: Do the police conduct street stops only when they observe individuals behaving suspiciously, or are the police increasingly stopping people without justification, as a way to discourage criminals from carrying guns in the street?

    Supreme Court precedent permits officers to conduct brief investigatory stops if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the individual stopped is engaged in criminality. And Judge Scheindlin suggested on Monday that the Police Department’s record of reducing crime was not central to the trial.

    “I have always said the effectiveness of the policy is not of interest to this court,” she said.

    Now we are getting to the meat. One can not legally implement a policy MERELY because it is effective. Policies must also be implemented in a manner which is in compliance with established rights.

    ...what remains to be seen is the judge's verdict on the whether this legal action (i.e. Terry Stop) is being implemented in a manner which meets this standard.

  • Given everything else that is in the news, the Stop and Frisk Trial has not been something that the media and public has spent a lot of time on.

    This article points out that this trial is coming to a close, closing arguments are expected to be made on Monday.

  • The NYT is stating that the judge won't make a decision on the case for a few months.

  • Needless to say, not all of the mayoral candidates believe that the policy does more harm than good:

  • Thompson's moderate views on Stop and Frisk just earned him endorsements from Rangel and Dinkins.

    Support and condemnation for Stop and Frisk is not as clear cut as some would have us believe.

  • When the IRS investigates people the right wing get all riled about it.

    When police do the same, somehow, then it is OK for the government to do so.

  • I have an aunt that used to live in Tallmage, OH. It very close to where the quotas homeowner describes are in effect.

    Clearly, those police have been ordered to act in a way that maintains their present relationship with the public.

  • Over the passed few years, the rhetoric around Stop and Frisk has changed from "Stopping It", to "making sure it isn't done in a manner that places too much weight on race alone".

    This change has come about because people are starting to understand the rights given to the police under the Terry decision, and have become worried that the CCR lawsuit will fail to change the present tension and tactics.

    The advocates have changed tactics. By passing a bill in the city council, they have recently expanded the rights of those frisked, and imposed additional supervision on the NYPD.

    If the practice of this bill follows the intent, the advocates have been successful.

    For better or worse, CCR's lawsuit might not be the force behind any change.... It may have just caused others to be more clever.

  • In my opinion, the press does a poor job of covering the reasons the police implement Stop and Frisk on the scale that have been.

    The press likes to state that the practice is supposed to catch people with weapons.

    However, the NYPD does not seem to have this as its main motivation. To them, the practice is a way to deter people from carrying guns and build a large database of people who are in high crime areas, during the hours which most crimes occur.

    This latest ruling effectively makes the practive ineffective at building a database:

    Needless to say, the police will still have "the right" to stop and frisk people, but they will have less of an incentive to do so.

    ...while this won't give CCR what it seems to crave most (A judge ruling that "Stop and frisk is racial profiling and therefore illegal"), it will reduce the use of Stop and Frisk.

  • Stop and Frisk ruled unconstituional August 12, 2013:

    From the text of the ruling:

    "I also conclude that the City's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner. In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting "the right people" is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution. One NYPD official has even suggested that it is permissible to stop racially defined groups just to insult fear in them that they are subject to being stopped at any time for any reason ..."

    Will the ruling have any effect?

    To be clear the NYPD may still conduct Terry stops, but they will be much more limited. The various pundits are doing analysis of the remedies of the 240 page ruling at the moment, but a friend writes:

    1. Appointment of independent monitor to oversee reform. The language in the ruling is quite strong on this, doesn't look to be a flimsy "let's appoint a panel to study this" sort of thing.

    2. Fixing training to make clear the constitutional standards for a Terry Stop, and that to actually frisk someone the officer must suspect them of being armed and dangerous (as opposed to having a dime bag of weed in their pocket)

    3. Improvements to stop and frisk documentation i.e. no more "furtive movements" bullshit. Officers must document actual reasonable suspicion for stop.

    4. Body-worn camera pilot program for NYPD so that all their interactions are recorded.

    5. Some specific policy changes including "A uniformed member of the service may not approach a person merely because the person has entered or exited or is present near a building enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program." Which means cops can't stop someone just because they live in an area known for drug activity.

  • Courts and politicians also need to stop police when people try to record their activities. Any cop found doing so should be immediately arrested, suspended, and heavily fined.

  • I think you meant to write:

    "Courts and politicians also need to stop police from arresting people who try to record their activities. Any cop found doing so should be immediately arrested, suspended, and heavily fined."

    I doubt you will be successful in this aim, and suggest that people record cops in secret instead.

  • Now that the primaries are over and the court case has been decided, I expect media attention to rapidly fade.

    However, now is when the real work begins. Now is when we see whether this court case and election has any meaningful impact in the neighborhoods we claimed to want to help:

    This is not a matter of proving that arresting uneducated, unemployed, addicted persons does not change their behavior over the long term. We proved that long ago.

    ...this is about looking for some other alternative that the public will find platable.

  • edited January 2014

    Another reason why society needs to control police:

    Strange how conservatives who normally get so upset about needless government intrusionism so often remain silent when truths like this are exposed.

  • As a result of the court decisions, DeBlasio and a new police commissioner, the NYPD doesn't stop and frisk as much. However, the police are still remaining quite busy, and the subjects of their efforts are likely disproportionately members of historically disadvantaged groups:

    "Arrests Of Subway Panhandlers Triples

    Arrests of peddlers and panhandlers in the subway have more than tripled over the past two months, compared to the same period last year. Officers have made 274 arrests. Police Commissioner Bill Bratton included the reduction of panhandling in the subway as a top priority in his inauguration speech. In a similar fashion, arrests at public housing for such violations as drinking beer in public and riding a bike on the sidewalk have increased to 21 percent from the same period last year. Such data is now available under Bratton, and was kept under wraps by the previous commissioner. Bratton sees the crackdown on low-level offenses as a way to deter more serious ones. Stop-and-frisks in the transit system, however, have dropped 96 percent."

    quote from Gotham Gazette.


    Is arresting people for riding their bike on the sidewalk in front of housing projects progress over stopping and frisking people who were hanging out there?

  • edited May 2014
    Given how wealth, education and employment are presently distributed in this country, I may be silly to expect an outcome that is any different.

  • edited May 2014
  • The majority of the arrests that stemmed from stop and frisk (S&F) were marijuana possession.

    Now that S&F is out of fashion, the NYPD seems to be arresting more folks for trespassing.   

    I suspect it is the SAME folks.
This discussion has been closed.